Cant have people enjoying themselves and seeing the world, can we.
Not when it's destroying the world for future generations to enjoy, no. Not for the sake of a few frequent flyers flying less frequently and taking more responsibility.
Cant have people enjoying themselves and seeing the world, can we.
Any particular reason why? Is it right to deny people the opportunity to travel, to see new places, meet new people, make new friends?I think if the world returns to pre-Covid levels of flying then we've done something wrong. Though ideally this should not be done by making flying less affordable.
Any particular reason why? Is it right to deny people the opportunity to travel, to see new places, meet new people, make new friends?
So you are denying people then? This is probably a subject better discussed elsewhere but the myth that air travel is destroying the planet needs to end. There are far more pressing issues at hand that are hidden behind this air travel shaming.I'm not denying anybody anything, other than perhaps the people going on cheapo EasyJet weekends away every other week, and business travellers making a cottage industry for themselves flying here and there week after week for meetings that can be done remotely more often. It's this sort of nonsense that needs to stop.
I think if the world returns to pre-Covid levels of flying then we've done something wrong. Though ideally this should not be done by making flying less affordable.
Aircraft on their own are causing this are they? I don't deny that flying should be reduced, especially internal flights but there are other issues as well that need addressing. Focusing on one allows others to go unnoticed until it's too late? Haven't we been here before, maybe over past 12 or so months?Not when it's destroying the world for future generations to enjoy, no. Not for the sake of a few frequent flyers flying less frequently and taking more responsibility.
I think if the world returns to pre-Covid levels of flying then we've done something wrong. Though ideally this should not be done by making flying less affordable.
A round trip flight for one person from London to Sydney causes more carbon emissions than the average Briton does from every activity they undertake in a year. It is about the most environmentally destructive activity humanly possible.So you are denying people then? This is probably a subject better discussed elsewhere but the myth that air travel is destroying the planet needs to end. There are far more pressing issues at hand that are hidden behind this air travel shaming.
I did a quick search for those figures. Every one I found indicated that the return flight is about half the annual British average.A round trip flight for one person from London to Sydney causes more carbon emissions than the average Briton does from every activity they undertake in a year. It is about the most environmentally destructive activity humanly possible.
Presumably you have a source for that statement?A round trip flight for one person from London to Sydney causes more carbon emissions than the average Briton does from every activity they undertake in a year. It is about the most environmentally destructive activity humanly possible.
A round trip flight for one person from London to Sydney causes more carbon emissions than the average Briton does from every activity they undertake in a year. It is about the most environmentally destructive activity humanly possible.
Any particular reason why? Is it right to deny people the opportunity to travel, to see new places, meet new people, make new friends?
Any particular reason why? Is it right to deny people the opportunity to travel, to see new places, meet new people, make new friends?
That's a two way street though, there are many people who are happy to drive absolutely everywhere without ever considering alternative means of transportation, whilst berating those people who choose to fly. Somewhere in the middle is a more amicable solution.I'm off tomorrow to collect my brand new diesel car, it seems that many, many people want to deny me the right to do that, to travel, to see new places, to meet new people and make new friends, I'd be interested to know why my choice should be so wrong while flying appears to be perfectly OK?
I read recently that the French government are looking to ban short haul flights where a HST option is available under 4-5 hours (?) travel time. I'd be very much in favour of this here & elsewhere, especially in Europe where high speed options are much more widely available. I'd also support some kind of scheme to get business travel down wherever possible, perhaps in the form of tax exemption / rebate. You'd need something like that in place because many airlines are now offering more consistent WiFi access along with plenty of space in business classes to work. This of course might have an impact on pricing for the higher end carriers, and they might find themselves reviewing their use of cabin space with their products in future although if this led to less first / business class seating, it might make an improvement of passenger vs CO2 emissions overall.No, but they should potentially be influenced into doing so by more environmentally friendly means, such as rail, and businesses need to plan for those slower modes of transport. (Consider for example that if you can work from home, unless what you're doing is super-confidential you can also work on a train!) And not all business travel is necessary anyway.
I'm not sure the "Kangaroo route" is the major part of it, to be honest. It is true that a lot of CO2 is released by flying half way round the world, but there are neither all that many people nor that many aircraft doing that, because there aren't that many people who have interests split between places thousands of miles apart. Most of the unnecessary flying is relatively short-haul.
Nope. The ICAO calculator does not include the radiative forcing effect. No doubt because of who produces it.. An accurate calculation gives a reading of 6t for a London to Sydney flight, which again is above the per capita emissions of the UK.This is totally wrong.
Accurate data for each flight can be found on https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx.
You can't fly London to Sydney direct, so I've done two calculations.
You can (pre-Covid at least) fly London to Perth direct. Qantas uses a 787-9 aircraft which is exceptionally efficient.
ICAO estimates the CO2 produced per leg is 498.6 kilograms so 997 KG for a return flight.
A common indirect route would be London-Singapore-Sydney. Connecting flights are much less efficient than direct because take-off and climb are very fuel-intensive stages of flight and obviously there are two of them compared to one on a direct flight.
ICAO averages the aircraft emissions for the aircraft which fly the routes (A380, 777-200ER, 777-300ER for London-Singapore and A330-200, A330-300, A380, 777-200ER, 777-300ER, 787-8, 787-9 for Singapore-Sydney). They estimate the CO2 produced as 501.3 KG for LHR-SIN and 370.0 for SIN-SYD meaning 1744.6 KG for a return flight.
Google says Britain's average emmissions per person is 5800 KG which is the equivalent of almost six return flights from London to Perth and three return flights to Sydney via Singapore.
As mentioned earlier in the thread, as countries develop the appetite for flying grows. The impact of aviation on the environment is relatively small because few people do it and an even smaller number of people fly frequently. I'm not saying we should ban people from flying abroad, but we have to accept that it has a major environmental impact.That's a two way street though, there are many people who are happy to drive absolutely everywhere without ever considering alternative means of transportation, whilst berating those people who choose to fly. Somewhere in the middle is a more amicable solution.
However, and I'll come on to this in another post another time, air travel is far from the worst source of unnecessary CO2 production. One of my biggest bugbears of all is the amount of food waste we generate every year. In the western, industrialised world this can be an estimated 30-40% of all food bought for consumption. That is a far more pressing issue, not only because of the environmental impact of that, but the fact that this wasted food could & should be helping millions from starving.
I read recently that the French government are looking to ban short haul flights where a HST option is available under 4-5 hours (?) travel time. I'd be very much in favour of this here & elsewhere, especially in Europe where high speed options are much more widely available. I'd also support some kind of scheme to get business travel down wherever possible, perhaps in the form of tax exemption / rebate. You'd need something like that in place because many airlines are now offering more consistent WiFi access along with plenty of space in business classes to work. This of course might have an impact on pricing for the higher end carriers, and they might find themselves reviewing their use of cabin space with their products in future although if this led to less first / business class seating, it might make an improvement of passenger vs CO2 emissions overall.
So you are denying people then? This is probably a subject better discussed elsewhere but the myth that air travel is destroying the planet needs to end. There are far more pressing issues at hand that are hidden behind this air travel shaming.
It is interesting when those stories come up, you don't ever see a saving with lots of splits on operator specific ticket. I got from Newcastle to London for £20 but had to travel via Glasgow, Reading and Bognor RegisI suggest that the challenge for rail versus any other kind of transport is the cost of tickets. When someone wishes to travel from Newcastle to London and finds that the rail fare is more expensive than to fly and change planes somewhere on the continent, as has cropped up in the news, something is badly wrong. Remember that this situation occurs in the UK when air travel is taxed but rail travel is supposedly subsidised! Of course, once you're off the ground flying needs no infrastructure to be maintained between boarding and destination.
There is a substantial air traffic control system to maintain, which is charged for.I suggest that the challenge for rail versus any other kind of transport is the cost of tickets. When someone wishes to travel from Newcastle to London and finds that the rail fare is more expensive than to fly and change planes somewhere on the continent, as has cropped up in the news, something is badly wrong. Remember that this situation occurs in the UK when air travel is taxed but rail travel is supposedly subsidised! Of course, once you're off the ground flying needs no infrastructure to be maintained between boarding and destination.
Certainly not as bad as planes I think I can safely say.How bad are ferries for the environment, as some people use ferries for a cleaner alternative?
Won't be any friends to make if we carry on destroying the planet. But seriously sacrifices will have to be made and I don't see anyone about to give up there cars so perhaps a diminishing of overall flights is a good idea.Any particular reason why? Is it right to deny people the opportunity to travel, to see new places, meet new people, make new friends?
On the basis that we have one flight a day in both directions that is still 365 british people carbon produce a year for one route which is a lot when you take in the thousands of other long haul flights across the world and the fact that Britons life style produces a lot of CO2, probably tooo much.I did a quick search for those figures. Every one I found indicated that the return flight is about half the annual British average.
When you look at rail, people typically book much closer to travelling, and there isn't the same deep discounting to fill seats that you see on airlines. Prices also tend to not jump as much during busy periods (although this is relative).I suggest that the challenge for rail versus any other kind of transport is the cost of tickets. When someone wishes to travel from Newcastle to London and finds that the rail fare is more expensive than to fly and change planes somewhere on the continent, as has cropped up in the news, something is badly wrong. Remember that this situation occurs in the UK when air travel is taxed but rail travel is supposedly subsidised! Of course, once you're off the ground flying needs no infrastructure to be maintained between boarding and destination.
I can see the need for continuing air travel, without travel shaming, for overseas travel.
However, I think we really need to make it clear that domestic travel by air should be a last resort, perhaps with some new form of air tax to get rid of cheap flights and persuade people to travel by other means, or removing typical direct domestic flights.
We have a fast electric railway as a means to cover the typical short haul flights such as Scotland and Manchester to London. This method of transport should be promoted, yes with cheaper rail fares if need be.
Journeys like the UK to France, Ireland, Belgium, Scandinavia, Holland and Germany I think should have better incentives for travel by rail or ferry, however I accept the current status of non-aviation travel to these places is such that air travel should remain an acceptable method of transport for them, at least until overseas rail travel is made more affordable.
In my immediate work circles there’s at least two people who commute from Ireland each week, by air. Personally I couldn’t begin to live like that, however if one has made that lifestyle choice then air is essentially currently the only realistic way of doing it. It’s the sort of thing which I’d tend to agree should probably be discouraged or disincentivised.
Indeed, if trains are to replace short haul flights, price is going to be a big factor & almost certainly won't happen with the any franchise system similar to the one currently being reviewed.I suggest that the challenge for rail versus any other kind of transport is the cost of tickets. When someone wishes to travel from Newcastle to London and finds that the rail fare is more expensive than to fly and change planes somewhere on the continent, as has cropped up in the news, something is badly wrong. Remember that this situation occurs in the UK when air travel is taxed but rail travel is supposedly subsidised! Of course, once you're off the ground flying needs no infrastructure to be maintained between boarding and destination.
Ferries may be, but longer distance cruise ships most certainly are not.Certainly not as bad as planes I think I can safely say.
As I've previously said, air travel is nowhere near the worst thing threatening the planet. However how would you image humanity would evolve if we massively reduced interactions between nations? Aside from the loss of valuable+ tourism income for many countries, history doesn't paint a favourable view of humanity when we are isolated. Isolation tends to lead to suspicion, which turns to hatred, which leads to war. And it turns our war is far, far worse than air travel. Travel has allowed more and more people to discover new cultures & new people, which is more likely to lead to at least some people becoming more tolerant of each and not chucking missiles at each other. And the world has lots of missiles, including some you should be really concerned about.Won't be any friends to make if we carry on destroying the planet. But seriously sacrifices will have to be made and I don't see anyone about to give up there cars so perhaps a diminishing of overall flights is a good idea.
No it is not, but what do you think is? Sadly I believe global warming is, on which food waste has little effect (excluding over production and the meat industry but that is a different argument).As I've previously said, air travel is nowhere near the worst thing threatening the planet
Its been estimated that industrialised nations waste anything between 30-40% of food. That's a lot of wasted food, that's a lot wasted production, that's a lot of wasted logistics, that's a lot of wasted packaging, not to mention disposal. That will add up a to a lot.No it is not, but what do you think is? Sadly I believe global warming is, on which food waste has little effect (excluding over production and the meat industry but that is a different argument).